Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

m.sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 680 posts

Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

#421

Post by syshum »

ryan_lane wrote: post #411
syshum wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for the fact that male and female pay for the same job, and experience level are statistically the same and there is no actual pay gap. The $0.79 on the $1 shit has been debunked a million times yet is still persists for some reason. The last good study I read showed a gap of something like 5% which was in the statistical margin and was largely accounted for by negotiation tactics. For an anecdote I (a male) e…

Moving jobs is the best way to get a large pay increase, especially if you're underpaid in your current job. Once you tell them how much you currently make, you've screwed yourself. This is a negotiating tactic used by employers to know how much they'll set as their upper bound for pay. Your employer may have strict pay bounds set, but a lot of places don't. The pay can vary highly between candidates, especially if t…

I dont disagree with much of what you said, I am mainly speaking out against the pay gap myth.

As far as disclosing pay, I alway deflect it and treat the question as them asking me what my salary expectations are, which likely ends up doing the same thing, but I dont think I have ever told a company what my salary was at a previous job

My current employer never asked, they said "this job pays X per year" did get a small increase over that first offer but not alot.

At this point in my career though (17 years in) I focus less on raw salary and more on working environment, I would rather take a lower salary to have a care free easy environment than make 15% more but have a high stress high demanding employer. Been there done that... not for me.

Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

#422

Post by ericd »

falcolas wrote: post #177
ericd wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So they're buying it from ADP?

Or getting it automatically from the employers in exchange for having access to it for new hires.

I doubt most employers would go for that, but I suppose it's possible. More importantly, though, it'd also be much harder than getting it from a payroll provider.

Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

#423

Post by mundo »

FireBeyond wrote: post #376
mundo wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any reason to think they do this? With "this" meaning "give higher rent hikes to tenants with high incomes than they otherwise would've." It doesn't sound remotely plausible to me.

I guarantee it. Some PM companies I'd rate lower than debt collection agencies on the ethics scale. See my sibling comment, promising owners they'd find ways to apply the maximum possible rent increases.

"It sounds like something those jerks would do" is the absolute least persuasive reason you could've given.

Here's why I think it's implausbile:

* It's hard for me to believe this practice would be profitable. The revenue would be pretty small (since it only applies to lease renewals, not the initial lease at the advertised price), and it would presumably increase turnover, which is one of a landlord's biggest costs.

* If this is common practice, why is it not common knowledge? It would be clickbait gold, and any two tenants in a big building full of identical units could compare notes and put two and two together, to say nothing of the hundreds or thousands of office workes in property management companies that would have to be aware of it. I looked around for about two minutes and didn't find any articles denouncing it, so it seems likely to be either false or the subject of a remarkably effective cover-up.

Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

#424

Post by chc »

pravda wrote: post #407
ryguytilidie wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any time you apply for a credit card or other form of credit, you generally have to give your income.

>you generally have to give your income. Well, you certainly don't have to give your "real" income. Aspirational income is fine.

Wouldn't applying for credit based on "aspirational" finances be fraud?

Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

#425

Post by oshepherd »

ryandrake wrote: post #256
pmoriarty wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never consider interviewing to be a waste of time. At the very least I get some very valuable practice out of it, learn more about what's out there, and meet some interesting people. Even if they wind up not hiring you because they find out you're too expensive for their current budget, their budget might increase in the future and they might try to hire you again. Or the people who you made a favorable-enough impr…

> I never consider interviewing to be a waste of time. Most on-site interviews require you to take a day off. If you've got 10 days of PTO, you can do a maximum of 10 interviews a year, and that's if you don't get sick or take any vacation. There is definitely a cost to interviewing.

The idea of only getting 10 days PTO a year continues to be incredible to me.

Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

#426

Post by dragonwriter »

ryandrake wrote: post #256
pmoriarty wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never consider interviewing to be a waste of time. At the very least I get some very valuable practice out of it, learn more about what's out there, and meet some interesting people. Even if they wind up not hiring you because they find out you're too expensive for their current budget, their budget might increase in the future and they might try to hire you again. Or the people who you made a favorable-enough impr…

> I never consider interviewing to be a waste of time. Most on-site interviews require you to take a day off. If you've got 10 days of PTO, you can do a maximum of 10 interviews a year, and that's if you don't get sick or take any vacation. There is definitely a cost to interviewing.

> If you've got 10 days of PTO, you can do a maximum of 10 interviews a year

Well, at no cost. Whether you can do more without adverse employment consequences depends on your company's unpaid leave policy.

Of course, if you only have 10 annual PTO days, that's a problem in itself.

Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

#427

Post by careersuicide »

Sangermaine wrote: post #329
pgeorgi wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I do not want my family and friends to know how much I make. > But have you thought about why you feel this way? Not every family is healthy. Some become _decidedly_ unhealthy as soon as money comes into play, and having precise figures available can be really destructive. It might work better in more egalitarian societies, where the difference in pay is less to begin with (eg Scandinavia). But that's not a road t…

>and having precise figures available can be really destructive. How? It doesn't change anything with regard to this specific concern about family. They already have an idea about how you live and how much you have from knowing you. They might not have a specific dollar amount, but they'll have a good idea.

A bit of ambiguity about certain things is an important lubricant for almost all non-romantic relationships. My family has a good idea of my salary (as pointed out elsewhere: they can see my house and my car) but I keep the specific number to myself. They're left with just a vague notion rather than anything they could do math with. It's much the same as how they only have a vague notion about what I do in the bathroom. They can use their imagination if they'd like and infer it from various things. But I shut the door so the obvious isn't rendered so plain to see as to become a topic of awkward (and sometimes destructive) conversation.

Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

#428

Post by kirykl »

s73ver_ wrote: post #373
kirykl wrote: post #312

I was asked once at an interview for my current salary, since I barely wanted the new job I gave them a number $20k less than true. The recruiter immediately said the job pays $10k less than that.

So wait, you said a number, and the recruiter said that the job paid less than what they believed you were currently making?

Yes she immediately came back with a number 10k lower. Which in reality was 30k lower than current for a very similar job

Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

#429

Post by refurb »

alexanderstears wrote: post #18
civilian wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Equifax has salary data? I hadn't heard that. //edit: Well shit, TIL: https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/10/equifax-breach-fallout-y...

They do - I'm not sure how they licence it though or what data sources they use but I've seen that their data on high income households is the best in the business and shockingly accurate. However, I can't imagine the compliance nightmare that would exist around a process that lets HR people look up people's equifax information. If they get a full report, it could contain information about disabilities, national orig…

I'm not sure how they licence it though or what data sources

Ever filled out a credit card application? Most of them ask for your current salary. This is before the credit check is done.

My guess is the credit card companies are passing that information back.

Of course, any time I put my salary in one of those applications it's correct in a range of $50K+. If they have those numbers, they are really inaccurate.

Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

#430

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

ryan_lane wrote: post #411
syshum wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for the fact that male and female pay for the same job, and experience level are statistically the same and there is no actual pay gap. The $0.79 on the $1 shit has been debunked a million times yet is still persists for some reason. The last good study I read showed a gap of something like 5% which was in the statistical margin and was largely accounted for by negotiation tactics. For an anecdote I (a male) e…

Moving jobs is the best way to get a large pay increase, especially if you're underpaid in your current job. Once you tell them how much you currently make, you've screwed yourself. This is a negotiating tactic used by employers to know how much they'll set as their upper bound for pay. Your employer may have strict pay bounds set, but a lot of places don't. The pay can vary highly between candidates, especially if t…

> Once you tell them how much you currently make, you've screwed yourself.

This is the truth. When I finished my CS degree and started looking for work, I had a recruiter tell me I shouldn't expect any pay over my previous job, and since my previous job was a software testing internship for $12.75/hr, I shouldn't expect more than $15/hr or so. I said "Yeah, no. I'm not taking a software engineering job for barely over $30k/year." He insisted that's how the industry works, even though my previous job was just an internship and wasn't even an engineering position.

I basically told him to pound sand, especially after he told me that at that position, I'd be expected to work 45-50 hours/week. Sure, I needed work, but I wasn't destitute.

Post reply on HN